Latest news with #OECE
New Straits Times
10 hours ago
- Business
- New Straits Times
AI will replace most humans in workplace, but then what?
IS technology more job augmenting or job replacing? This has been a long-standing debate. But recent academic work suggests that technology has been a net destroyer of jobs for decades. Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics could rapidly accelerate this trend, with significant implications for inflation, the size of government and United States-China relations. Over the long arc of history, technological advances have enabled industries to emerge, as workers, released from "older" jobs by machines, have been able to transition into newer ones. Indeed, 60 per cent of workers today are employed in occupations that did not exist in 1940, or 74 per cent if we consider just the professional category, which added the most workers during the past eight decades. However, recent academic research suggests we may have reached an inflection point in the US, whereby technology is now destroying more jobs than it is creating. David Autor, an economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and winner of the 2005 John Clark Bates Medal, argues that since 1980, the jobs replaced by automation have not been fully offset by new jobs created. This reflects the pace of technological change and the fact that advancements are now increasingly focused on "professional, technical, and managerial occupations", Autor notes, rather than lower-skilled work. He finds that machines that are more powerful than an average human (e.g., a tractor) are typically labour-augmenting and productivity-enhancing, while machines that are also smarter than the average human tend to be labour-substituting. And AI is on pace to be a lot smarter than most humans. While forms of AI have been around since the 1940s, the immense computing power resulting from advances in semiconductor technologies has now allowed machines to attain multidimensional intelligence. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that many workers are going to be replaced by automation in the coming decades, even if the best AI is never as creative or imaginative as the smartest humans. A 2019 OECE report and a 2018 paper by PriceWaterhouseCoopers argue that 15 to 30 per cent of all jobs in developed markets are at risk of being automated. If AI does turn out to be a net job destroyer, what are some of the biggest implications? First, it's likely to be deflationary. High and rising unemployment resulting from ever cheaper and more capable machines should, in theory, lead to structural deflation, as technologies that can rapidly augment the supply of goods and services should reduce demand if they cause massive job losses. Next, the US government will probably get even bigger. In a mass unemployment scenario, the government would likely be compelled to step in to facilitate income and wealth transfers from the owners of robots and tech businesses to the unemployed workers. And which countries will come out on top? The economic winners and losers in the years ahead will likely be determined by who can best create and utilise technology. The US and China, both dominant in cerebral technologies, therefore, appear well positioned to thrive in this environment. Even if the trade war between the US and China is short, the tech war between these two countries could be protracted — and ultimately much more consequential. The tech war, unlike the trade war, is dynamic, meaning it's continually evolving and advancing. My views here are admittedly speculative. But the arguments for why AI and robotics could ultimately be labour-creating are as well. Furthermore, these arguments are often obscured by sloppy references to labour productivity, which is a simple ratio between output and labour input. When calculating this, there is often little explanation of what part of the output should be attributed to the labour input. For example, should subway train drivers account for the value of the entire subway system? Projections based on such questionable assumptions should be viewed cautiously. Finally, it's also true that populations in many developed markets are ageing, so the heavy use of automation could simply offset the shrinkage in the labour force, something we're already seeing in Japan and South Korea. But ageing, like natural evolution in general, is gradual, while computational and technological evolution accelerates at an exponential pace. Because of the convexity in technological advances, it's hard not to bet on technology rather than workers.
Observer
2 days ago
- Business
- Observer
AI will replace most humans, but then what?
Is technology more job augmenting or job replacing? This has been a long-standing debate. But recent academic work suggests that technology has been a net destroyer of jobs for intelligence and robotics could rapidly accelerate this trend, with significant implications for inflation, the size of government and U.S.-China relations. Over the long arc of history, technological advances have enabled industries to emerge, as workers, released from "older" jobs by machines, have been able to transition into newer ones. Indeed, 60% of workers today are employed in occupations that did not exist in 1940, or 74 percent if we consider just the professional category, which added the most workers during the past eight decades. However, recent academic research suggests we may have reached an inflection point in the U.S., whereby technology is now destroying more jobs than it is Autor, an economist at MIT and winner of the 2005 John Clark Bates Medal, argues that since 1980, the jobs replaced by automation have not been fully offset by new jobs created. This reflects the pace of technological change and the fact that advancements are now increasingly focused on "professional, technical, and managerial occupations," Autor notes, rather than lower-skilled work. He finds that machines that are more powerful than an average human (e.g., a tractor) are typically labour-augmenting and productivity-enhancing, while machines that are also smarter than the average human tend to be labour-substituting. And AI is on pace to be a lot smarter than most forms of AI have been around since the 1940s, the immense computing power resulting from advances in semiconductor technologies has now allowed machines to attain multidimensional intelligence. It is therefore reasonable to assume that many workers are going to be replaced by automation in the coming decades, even if the best AI is never as creative or imaginative as the smartest humans. In fact, a 2019 OECE report and a 2018 paper by PriceWaterhouseCoopers argue that some 15-30% of all jobs in developed markets are at risk of being automated. IMPLICATIONS If AI does turn out to be a net job destroyer, what are some of the biggest implications?First, it's likely to be deflationary. High and rising unemployment resulting from ever cheaper and more capable machines should, in theory, lead to structural deflation, as technologies that can rapidly augment the supply of goods and services should reduce demand if they cause massive job losses. Next, the U.S government will probably get even bigger. In a mass unemployment scenario, the government would likely be compelled to step in to facilitate income and wealth transfers from the owners of robots and tech businesses to the unemployed workers. And which countries will come out on top? The economic winners and losers in the years ahead will likely be determined by who can best create and utilize U.S. and China, both dominant in cerebral technologies, therefore appear well positioned to thrive in this environment. These economic and technology superpowers have adopted muscular industrial policies, while Europe - the other big regional power - has not yet done this also suggests is that, even if the trade war between the U.S. and China is short, the tech war between these two countries could be protracted - and ultimately much more consequential. The tech war, unlike the trade war, is dynamic, meaning it's not about challenging the static comparative advantages of nations, but rather continually evolving and would be wise to keep this distinction in mind, as the dynamic aspect of the tech war is apt to become much more important than, say, whether Vietnam is allowed to sell cheap running shoes in the U.S. EXPONENTIAL CHANGE My views here are admittedly speculative. But the arguments for why AI and robotics could ultimately be labour-creating are as these arguments are often obscured by sloppy references to labour productivity, which is a simple ratio between output and labour input. When calculating this, there is often little explanation of what part of the output should be attributed to the labour input. For example, should subway train drivers account for the value of the entire subway system? Projections based on such questionable assumptions should be viewed it's also true that populations in many developed markets are aging, so the heavy use of automation could simply offset the shrinkage in the labour force, something we're already seeing in Japan and South Korea. But aging, like natural evolution in general, is gradual, while computational and technological evolution accelerates at an exponential pace. Because of the convexity in technological advances, it's hard not to bet on technology rather than workers.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
AI will replace most humans, but then what?
By Stephen Jen Is technology more job augmenting or job replacing? This has been a long-standing debate. But recent academic work suggests that technology has been a net destroyer of jobs for decades. Artificial intelligence and robotics could rapidly accelerate this trend, with significant implications for inflation, the size of government and U.S.-China relations. Over the long arc of history, technological advances have enabled industries to emerge, as workers, released from "older" jobs by machines, have been able to transition into newer ones. Indeed, 60% of workers today are employed in occupations that did not exist in 1940, or 74 percent if we consider just the professional category, which added the most workers during the past eight decades. Live Events However, recent academic research suggests we may have reached an inflection point in the U.S., whereby technology is now destroying more jobs than it is creating. David Autor, an economist at MIT and winner of the 2005 John Clark Bates Medal, argues that since 1980, the jobs replaced by automation have not been fully offset by new jobs created. This reflects the pace of technological change and the fact that advancements are now increasingly focused on "professional, technical, and managerial occupations," Autor notes, rather than lower-skilled work. He finds that machines that are more powerful than an average human (e.g., a tractor) are typically labour-augmenting and productivity-enhancing, while machines that are also smarter than the average human tend to be labour-substituting. And AI is on pace to be a lot smarter than most humans. While forms of AI have been around since the 1940s, the immense computing power resulting from advances in semiconductor technologies has now allowed machines to attain multidimensional intelligence. It is therefore reasonable to assume that many workers are going to be replaced by automation in the coming decades, even if the best AI is never as creative or imaginative as the smartest humans. In fact, a 2019 OECE report and a 2018 paper by PriceWaterhouseCoopers argue that some 15-30% of all jobs in developed markets are at risk of being automated. IMPLICATIONS If AI does turn out to be a net job destroyer, what are some of the biggest implications? First, it's likely to be deflationary. High and rising unemployment resulting from ever cheaper and more capable machines should, in theory, lead to structural deflation, as technologies that can rapidly augment the supply of goods and services should reduce demand if they cause massive job losses. Next, the U.S government will probably get even bigger. In a mass unemployment scenario, the government would likely be compelled to step in to facilitate income and wealth transfers from the owners of robots and tech businesses to the unemployed workers. And which countries will come out on top? The economic winners and losers in the years ahead will likely be determined by who can best create and utilize technology. The U.S. and China, both dominant in cerebral technologies, therefore appear well positioned to thrive in this environment. These economic and technology superpowers have adopted muscular industrial policies, while Europe - the other big regional power - has not yet done so. What this also suggests is that, even if the trade war between the U.S. and China is short, the tech war between these two countries could be protracted - and ultimately much more consequential. The tech war, unlike the trade war, is dynamic, meaning it's not about challenging the static comparative advantages of nations, but rather continually evolving and advancing. Investors would be wise to keep this distinction in mind, as the dynamic aspect of the tech war is apt to become much more important than, say, whether Vietnam is allowed to sell cheap running shoes in the U.S. EXPONENTIAL CHANGE My views here are admittedly speculative. But the arguments for why AI and robotics could ultimately be labour-creating are as well. Furthermore, these arguments are often obscured by sloppy references to labour productivity, which is a simple ratio between output and labour input. When calculating this, there is often little explanation of what part of the output should be attributed to the labour input. For example, should subway train drivers account for the value of the entire subway system? Projections based on such questionable assumptions should be viewed cautiously. Finally, it's also true that populations in many developed markets are aging, so the heavy use of automation could simply offset the shrinkage in the labour force, something we're already seeing in Japan and South Korea. But aging, like natural evolution in general, is gradual, while computational and technological evolution accelerates at an exponential pace. Because of the convexity in technological advances, it's hard not to bet on technology rather than workers. (The views expressed here are those of Stephen Jen, the CEO and co-CIO of Eurizon SLJ asset management).
Scoop
07-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
FamilyBoost Changes A Boost For Higher Income Families – But They Fail To Even Out The Playing Field For All Whānau
Tweaks to FamilyBoost that will put more money back into the pockets of families with infants and young children in early childhood education will certainly be good news for many parents amid the cost of living crisis. But the changes to the scheme announced today fail to address some of the problems that have prevented uptake – such ECE service providers failing to provide parents with compliant invoices. The changes also seem to favour higher income families, who can afford higher fee-charging services, the Office of Early Childhood Education's chief advisor, Dr Sarah Alexander, says. On Monday, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the IRD estimated that around 16,000 more families would be eligible for rebates under the revised scheme, when the income threshold is raised from $180,000 to $229,000 on October 1, and that those who already qualify would now get up to 40% of their fees back (up from a maximum of 25%). Alexander says although she's pleased that more families will benefit from the scheme, she would've liked to see lower income families getting a higher proportion of ECE costs back. 'I would have liked to see the policy creating a more even playing field when it comes to affordability of childcare and supporting parental choice of ECE service.' Before advising the Minister on how to improve the scheme's uptake, Inland Revenue asked the Office of Early Childhood Education for ideas. In our submission, we outlined several key problems with the scheme in its original form. Based on our analysis, we suggested that the Government: Maintain the rebate of 25% of eligible fees for higher-income households, but increase the rebate to 50% or higher for lower-income households. Apply the rebate cap of $975 per quarter on a per child, rather than per family basis. Make claiming the rebate easier by reducing the amount of information that parents must input before they upload invoices. Require ECE providers to provide timely and correct invoices, and not place their own conditions on parents making a claim. Produce short videos for social media outlining how FamilyBoost works and how to make a claim (ensuring the messaging resonates with time-poor parents). The OECE's full submission to the IRD is on our website at While we're pleased to see the rebate amount raised, in the OECE's view, the process of claiming remains burdensome for parents and caregivers, and needs to be simplified to encourage more eligible whānau to take up the rebates.
Scoop
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Teachers Are Paying The Price For Lack Of ECE Funding In The Budget
The Office of Early Childhood Education (OECE) fears sweeping – and sudden – changes to the pay parity scheme, allowing most ECE centres to pay graduate teachers, teachers coming from overseas and those moving from primary schools to ECE lower salaries, will seriously harm the sector's ability to attract new talent. Today, the Ministry of Education has announced that from July 1, education and care centres will only have to pay newly certificated teachers and certificated teachers who are new to working in New Zealand ECE centres at step 1 of the salary scale, which is $57,358 per year ($27.58 an hour) for at least the first year. Previously, services were required to take into account whether teachers held additional and higher qualifications, such as an honours degree or Masters degree of teaching, when working out what their starting salary should be. They also had to recognise any prior relevant work experience and any experience in the primary school system when assessing teachers' level of experience. The OECE's chief advisor Dr Sarah Alexander says the message this sends to educators and employers alike is clear: 'ECE teachers and their families are the ones that must self-sacrifice to keep ECE service financial margins up'. 'It also sends out a message that higher qualifications and experience for teachers count for nothing. This is devastating news for ECE teachers and the future of our profession.' Although ECE employers will be required to honour existing pay rates with teachers, it is not entirely accurate for the Ministry to claim that currently employed certificated teachers should not be affected by the change. That's because under the new rules, services that have opted to pay their permanently employed certificated teachers according to the parity or extended pay parity scale amounts won't be able to opt in to attest to paying higher salary scales after the July 2025 funding payment, for a period of 2 years. This could effectively equate to a pay freeze for many teachers employed at more than 1000 ECE services across Aotearoa because the service providers they work for won't be able to access increased funding to improve pay for staff. In Alexander's view, the government is doing this to try to limit its expenditure on ECE sector funding – because each funding round the number of centres opting in to paying extended and full pay parity goes up. (Under the pay parity scheme, services get more funding if they agree to pay certificated teachers according to one of four increasing salary scales.) The changes come just days after Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced the cost adjustment for ECE in the 2025 Budget would be just 0.5%. This was miles behind inflation, which is at 2.5%, so is effectively a funding cut. (See The Ministry has said in documents detailing the changes that the rationale is to 'support the sustainability of education and care… alongside the cost adjustment to subsidy rates announced as part of Budget 2025.' Alexander says: 'In other words, the Ministry is saying ECE teachers must pay the price for the lack of investment in the sector in Budget 2025. This is a way of keeping the cost of ECE centre funding down for the Government, while also not affecting service providers' bottom lines.'
